The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-05

1
day OF an election for Governor and Lieutenant
governor; make out at full length two certified
statements. under the seal of his court, of the
number of votes each candidate has received
one of which he shall transmit to the Sneaker of
the House of Representatives of the next Gen
eral Assembly by his Senator or Representative
VINO snail deliver the same to the Speaker
on or before the second day of the session
and the other certified statement shall
be transmitted by mail to Indianapolis. directed
to said Speaker, and to the care of the Secretar
OF State, by whom the same shall be delivered
10 the Speaker, on or before the second day of
the session. 1t appears from these consttu-
tlonai and statutory provisions that the papers
sent by the clerks of the counties Of the State to
Indianapolis addressed to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives in the care of the Sec
Rotary of State, are in the hands of the Secretary
as mere custodian. charged with delivering
them to the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives. Nothing that the Secretary can do can
have 6,ve validity nona +, to the the papers if they
nothing he can do deprive them of validity if,
under the law, they valid. If the Secretary
may be enjoined from performing the imperative
duty enJotned on HIM by law, upon like reason
members of the General Assembly to whom
duplicates of such papers intrusted for de-
livery to the officers to whom they are delivered
and to whom the law says they shall be deliv-
cred. We doubt whether papers directed bv
law to be delivered to designated officer can,
IN any case, be stopped by injunction in
the hands of mere custodian, charged
py law with duty of delivering them:
cannot be stopped by Injunction in the hands Of
custodian In such case as that which the
record presents to us. If the court should en-
JOIN the Secretary of State substantial relief
would be accomplished, because duplicates of
the papers in his custody are in the hands of
members OF the General Assembly, who are
charged by law with the duty of delivering them
10 the Speaker, to whom they are directed, and
,iNy1
ing duty cast upon them by the law DEGREES
CT courts IN injunction cases can only
oe enforced by Furnishing by fine or
Imprisonment those who disregard them, and it
cannot be true that counts can fine or imprson
legislators for doing what the law directs them
10 90. 1t is q genera. principle, we'll grounded
In reason and fully established by authority,
mat courts will not issue writs of Injunction in
cases where they would be unavaiiinp; and a
writ would be unavailing here, for the courts
cannot lnflict punishment upon officers for doing
what the law commands them to do
IL is principle of constitutional law, de-
clared IN our Constitution and enforced BY our
own and other courts that the deparrmeats of
government are separate and distinct and that |
the offices of one department shall not invade |
any other: 10 interfere by injunction in this
case would involve a violation of the funda- |
mental principles, and a conflict between the !
great departments of the government would re- |
suit from an exercise Of the jurisdiction invoked
oS the appellant The General Assembly has |
session. and to compel the production of papers |
winch are necessary to enable it to fully and in
.elligenfly discharge its duties and exercise it's |
functions. Ii the judiciary should enjoin the |
secretary OF State from delivering to |
the Speaker the papers described in |
the complaint. and the General Assembly |
should demand their delivery to the officer 20 I
whom they are addressed, conflict OF authority |
would ISSUE which no tribunal could effectually |
determine. If the Secretary should in such a |
case, yield to the demands of the General As
semoly 1t would be contrary to the authority of |
the court and he would be liable to punishment. |
If, on the other hand. he should dsobey the de-
mands of the General Assembly, he would be in |
contempt of its authority, and subject to punish
ment. If the General Assembly should deem it
the duty OF the Secretary of State to deliver the
papers, 1t would not require the aid of the courts
TO compel its performance, for it possesses
the power to coerce the production
OF papers and documents. There is, we
Know some conflict in the cases to whether
the Legislature possesses the general inherent
power to punish for contempt. but it is agreed
substantial diversity of opinion, that it
may make and enforce orders for the production |
OF papers In matters on which it has power to
act Henderson, Dunn and Wheat. No. 4 It's
apparent, therefore, that as, on the one hand
the General Assembly would not require the aid
OF the courts, by mandamus or otherwise, to
conpel the production of papers, addressed by
dlrectlon OF the Constitution and the statutes |
to the presiding officer of one of its branches
SO, on the other hand, the courts cannot, bv in.
junction, produce that result by stopping them
In the hands OF one whom the law makes mere
Many even assert that courts cannot control
by injunction, or by any other writ, the exercise
of purely legislative or executive power
Inc principle which underlies the decisions on
ibis point is we'll stated by our own court in
Wright VS.. Defrees, Ind, 298 when it was
said, The powers OF the three departments are
not merely equal; they are exclusive Ia respect
TO 'ns anties assigned to each: they ara absolute
~; 'naepen9ent o. EACH other. In other cases
sGregofy VS. State, 81 Ind, 1884, Burer vs. State.
u Ind., 3|3l To stay papers addressed to the
presiding officer of one of the branches of the
in the hands OF a mere custodian
would be invasion of the doctrine. and
one that might produce serious conflict between
the judiciary and the legislative department Of
he government.
1t IS an underlying principle acted upon
a . ana again, that where it is ascertained
lhat there Is no jurisdiction courts will 90 no
urther 1t would not only be vain and fru.
ess thing to aspire to decide question where
mere Is no jurisdiction, but it would be mis-.
'hlevous thing. because 1t would give an appear
lnce OF authority to that which is utterly des-
ltute OF force Such decision would have the
nerest shadow of authority. binding nobody.
People VS.. Connen, 68 n Y 403 1t is laid
ip among the earliest principles of the law that a
ecision where there is no Jurisdiction is abso- |
ntely and incurably void In refusing to inter |
ere by Injunction, the court neither decides {
hat the papers are of legal force nor determines
what disposition can be made of them, for it sim
'iy declines to interfere by injunction because il
las no jurisdiction to award such a writ
The question is one of jurisdiction over the
approximation, and jurisdiction of the subject I
natter comes from the law alone. It is ner
ecty clear, in reason and upon authority. that |
10 man can invest the courts with Jurisdiction j
I the subject-matter; the law alone can do this T
n giving Judgment upon case very like the
resent in principle the Supreme Court of
Minnesota said: 'rhe executive office cannot sur.
ender the defense ,
This principle frequently finds expression, :
Though not always accurately, or elegantly. In
he statement so often found in the books that q
such Judgment Is coram non JUDGE, and void I
Int one result can here be reached. either on I
rnciple or authority and that is that the I
ourts have Jurisdiction 10 enrartain this s.i4 I